About your Search

20130121
20130129
STATION
CSPAN2 7
CSPAN 6
MSNBCW 4
MSNBC 3
FBC 2
CNBC 1
CNN 1
CNNW 1
LANGUAGE
English 26
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)
baker and george h.w. bush nsx 70 hageman of the world's nations. this subset can do that, we have seen a completely different scene and that is what i would describe as the 20 armors and three libraries and they've got about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world. and oliver sudden, you have people who don't have -- a lot of people in congress who don't have the previous reference has basically come to the conclusion that the world is change and they really can't afford, nor do we have the public support for global engagement. when you go back home intact to people back home, it literally is like saying you need to diet and lose a lot of weight and i'll get a haircut or not solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid in person is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant compared to the whole. yet the will to support that going forward into the event step out and say well, we are to be more engaged here or we can do more here or these are the functions that are working, it's hard to get public support for that. it's hard to get congressional sup
say it long enough, it must be true. i submit to you that george w. bush, who won two terms as a republican president, he was also told the same thing for 2.5 years. you can win. i would ask people politely, in 1997, who do you like in 2000? george w. bush, that is terrific. why? he can win. why do you think you can win? he is high in the polls. i will say, he did get high in the polls. how did that happen? everybody thinks he can win. plus he raised all that money. he is high in the polls, everybody thinks he can win. it becomes circular. he can win -- the democrats never ask that question. quickly, jimmy carter, barack obama, bill clinton. three important things we should learn. one was, they were all told they can't win. jimmy, how many times as he told he cannot win? and he won. i many times was barack obama told, don't even bother? hillary has got it wrapped up. that again? they were all told you can't win. they all one. two of them won twice. 20 years of democratic president because they defied the nonsense of who can or cannot win. third, they all one with people you
. mitt romney, he can win. if he said it won enough, it must be true. george w. bush, who won two terms, as a republican president, i would ask people politely in 1997, who delights in 2000? george w. bush, that is terrific. why? he can win. you are right. he raised all of that money. how did he raise all that money? it becomes circular. he can win, the democrats never asked that question. jimmy carter, bill clinton, barack obama. they were all told, you cannot win. how many told -- how many times was jimmy carter told, you cannot win? how many times was barack obama told you cannot win? they all won. two of them twice. the 01 with people you had never heard of before. we do not have anything like that in the republican party. we throw good money after bad. dole and mccain and romney use the same people. staff infection. it will not matter to do you put in front of them if you have the same people pulling the same strengths. [applause] >> how do we make a compelling argument? from a conservative point of view, how can you even make the compelling argument to republicans? it is not some
party over the past four years since george w. bush left town is roger els. he's run the party, he's run the conservative movement. when roger els decides she's not worth the trouble, then that means that conservatism's moving in a new direction. i talked about what happened this weekend at "the national review" institute's talk. i was really surprised. really surprised by what i heard. and heartened, whether it was bill kristol or john hatoritz. also scott walker who is doing really well up in wisconsin. and all the republicans got up there, and they were saying the same thing. we've got to stop being the stupid party. we've been saying here for six months, we have got to -- and john, i thought, had one of the best points, that we have stifled debate. the conservative movement has stifled debate. and if you go out and you dare to stand out in a crowd, whether it's on taxes or regulations or in the past on immigration, you were completely shunned from the party. finally there's an understanding we've got to grow the party. what we've been saying for quite frankly for years and getting at
a relief it is! >>> welcome back. josh trevino former speechwriter in the george w. bush administration and now at the texas public policy foundation and ambassador swanee hunt who served as u.s. ambassador to austria, now a lecturer at harvard's kennedy school of government. we have just been talking as you saw in a very heated fashion about the situation in north africa and i think that's one core part of the legacy of the first administration's foreign policy and hillary clinton's tenure at state and i think the defining external event to the administration of foreign policy has been the arab spring, obviously, and all that uncorked and how to manage that. but before we get to that, we still have robin on satellite. i want to talk about the relationship between the president and hillary clinton and the degree to which the legacy of foreign policy in the first term has been hillary clinton's legacy and the degree to which it really has been -- the shots have been called from the white house because a lot of reporting on this has been very interesting. tonight there's going to be an in
presence put together by jim baker and george h. w. bush and the success in the engagement of it. but subsequent to that, we have seen a completely different scene. that is what i would describe as three alarmers and two alarmers. we about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world within all of a sudden you have people who don't have the -- a lot of people in congress who don't have the previous reference have basically come to the conclusion that the world has changed and we can't afford nor do we have the public support for global open gaugement. -- engagement. when you talk to people back home and you say why do we give so much foreign aid? it is literally like saying, you know, you need to diet and lose a lot of weight and you get a haircut and solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid and presence now is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant compared to it. but yet the will to support that going forward and even step out and say well we ought to be more engaged here or do more here or these are the functions that are working. it's
was the -- was not a controversial issue within the republican party during the george w. bush years where you had vast -- they're not going to core issues about their view of government, of society, of the market, and i think that you see a great deal of desperation instead taking place. you look at what's happening in virginia and pennsylvania and michigan and the places where they're trying to change the rules in order to kind of hang on to some -- their presidential electoral hopes. >> alex, on this question of democracy, i was trying to think of this quote from bobby jindahl in this speech that he is going to give. he says we must reject the notion that the noegs that skin pigmentation dictates behavior. the first step in getting voters to like you is to demonstrate that you like them. >> that is the crystallizing issue for the republican party. how do you convince anyone not of the republican party current demographic hue, how do you convince those people that you like them and right now all those folks have a number of examples to point to to show that the republican does not like them, does not want th
is effectively following the policy that george w. bush did beforeha beforehand. going forward, i think israelis -- on the he them will say can they do this? i tend to subscribe to the view that a healthy relationship between them and the u.s. is going to have to be fungal. but i also agree with the view that obama is unlikely to take that action in the near term 37. >> david, last question. speaking of north africa, while we've got you, the latest on the algerian situation seems -- the information still is becoming to us not this any real sort of clarified way. what happens now? do you think president obama will have to address a new approach to africa? >> the u.s. has been building in north africa for at least a decade, in toerchls trying to build up the ministry of mali, particularly the algerian army doesn't heed to a -- yeah, that's for sure. it could be weeks, months, years. thank you so much both for your time. stay with us. straight ahead, we'll have a look at travel casts across the continent. we'll be right back. ♪ [ male announcer ] how do you turn an entrepreneur's dream... ♪ int
lazear, hoover institute fellow and former chief economic advisor to president george w. bush has some ideas on what washington needs to do before the new debt deadline is upon us. ed, thank you for joining us. so what -- >> pleasure, thank you. ashley: what should congress do before that debt ceiling again comes upon us and what's the likelihood they will do it? >> well i'm not so sure they should be focusing on the short run at all. they should think in terms of what are things they need to do to grow the economy. if you look at the history of economic growth since the economy got out of the recession, formally got out of the recession back in june of 2009, we've had growth of about 2%. the long-term growth rate in this country is about 3%. so, a recovery usually means that you're growing at rates that are better than the average, in order to catch up. we're not even growing at rates near the average. ashley: right. >> what congress and the president need to do is focus primarily on things that would get the growth rates up. i would putnam per one on the list, focusing on the tax cod
predecessor, george w. bush with the hispanic vote. it was a landslide in favor of the president. thanks for your take, greg. >> you bet. melissa: a quarter too. as we do every 15 minutes, nicole petallides is watching the new york stock exchange and facebook. >> facebook has positive comments from analysts. this was a $38 ipo last may. let's take it right here and right now. this is an up arrow and raised to outperform over at raymond james from outperform. they will report quarterly numbers on wednesday. that is something we'll look for. they recently settled a class-action lawsuit for $20 million. they have a lot of folks who have very hot on facebook's mobile ad revenue growth they have been seeing that will be something to watch for as well. back to you. melissa: nicole, thanks so much. lori: weekend winter storm saving people in utah from a smothering smog had doctors telling people to work from home? regulators blaming something called temperature inversion. when a combo of no wind and cold temperatures drapeau out ants in the valley. the epa labeled the salt lake city area as wor
. we saw the global presence put together by jim baker and george h.w. bush and the success of that in the engagement of the world's nations. but subsequent to that, um, we have seen a completely different scene, and that is what i would describe as the two alarmers or the three alarmers. and we've got about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world. and all of a sudden you have people who don't have that previous, a lot of people in congress who don't have that previous reference or who basically have come to the conclusion the world has changed, and we really can't afford nor do we have the public support for global engagement. and so when you go back home and talk to people back home, they say, you know, why do we give so much foreign awed when it literally -- aid when it literally is like saying, you know, you need to diet and lose a lot of walking and say, well, i'm going to go get a haircut, and that'll solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid and the amount of foreign presence now is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant co
is more self-aware than i perhaps thought he was on this. he's been looking at george w. bush's early part of the second term. but the question is what are they going to do about this? they do have a lot of things on their plate with gun control. how much are they going to push this? senate democrats, as you've been saying all morning, are their biggest problem here. >> can you talk about that? because i heard john barrasso, a republican leader in the senate, talk about, gosh, a large number of senate democrats that are running in states where barack obama got below 45%. >> it's tough for them. >> democrats are running in republican territory two years from now in a lot of these senate races, right? >> no question. and a lot of these issues, obviously like on gun control and things are things that these senate democrats don't want to talk about at all. the re-election prospects -- i mean, it's too early to say who's going to be controlling the senate after 2014, but democrats will have an uphill climb. you look at senator kay hagen from north carolina. she has a tough re-election fight on
. that is a really good question. i don't know -- the relationship between america and george w. bush was very solid. my mind drifted. your question was the israelis. i am sorry. time for a refill on my coffee. many, many discussions with the germans relative to their position, relative to our position and the israeli issue. public sentiment in germany as a whole is strongly for a reconciliation for the palestinians, yeah overlying all of that is the residue of the holocaust. i think i can say this. i have a private discussion with the foreign minister on this topic and it had to do with iran and the nuclear threat to israel and the position germany was taking relative to that. i was questioning where they might be should there be a real threat or attack on israel. he said you know that that is not what the public would want us to do but given the holocaust we have no choice but to be there in support of israel. we cannot stand by and let another holocaust take place. so those decades of remorse and guilt over the holocaust dictates policy relative to support for israel even though the public now de
in 2012. that was down from john mccain got 31% in 2000 and he lost. george w. bush proved the point. the republicans need to get about 40% or more to win a race for president. this isn't just about the presidency. look at a couple of senate races from 2012 right here. in the state of florida, democrats nearly 6 in 10 latino votes. in virginia, 62%. in arizona, 74%. we can go state, by state, by state. democrats sometimes above 60% in the latino vote. you look at the demographics. republicans can't sustain themselves. let's look at the house races. in 2012, 68%. again, nearly 7 in 10 latinos vote democratic. that's matching the numbers from 2008. 70% 7 70%. in 2004, it was 66%. yes, there are policy questions. senator mccain was honest enough to say, a lot of this being dictated by election results. >> the senate looks like they're working on a bipartisan way for comprehensive immigration reform. it's moving along in the senate. what about the house of representatives? >> i wouldn't get too far out ahead of yourself and say this will pass the house but there is clear changes under wa
. well, why? that's not what bill clinton did. that's not what george w. bush did. that's not what ronald reagan did. if you look at the exit polls after the november election, the people of the united states said we want both parties, all sides to get together and get something done in washington, d.c. our point was how can this guy who is working as an unbiased political director for cbs -- i mean, you tune to cbs, you want it unpolitical; right? right down the middle. how can he work for this far-left blog as well as their chief correspondent. john, pick a lane. which is it? down the middle or way left? >>brian: it looks like he was giving the president advice and he has a point of view. and i thought he was supposed to not have one. meanwhile, 22 minutes before the hour. >>steve: the coldest temperatures of the season bearing down on the midwest and northeast. the coldest place in the country yesterday was minnesota, 36 below at one spot. maria molina is tracking the weather. maria, i hear it is going to warm up in minnesota, up into the 20's in the next couple of days but it is bitte
that that money is being effectively used to address certain things. george w. bush, i give him significant credit for the that far -- because they have set a certain standard, that these are our values, these are our standards, if you are able to enforce and implement those standards, we will provide you that support. there are some very good success stories there. it is a difficult climate with which to go back home and tell people that it works and it is and our national interest and we have a moral commitment on some of the tragic things that are happening, for example nutrition and disease and so forth. but as we see what is happening now in africa, and the threats there any changes that are taking place, africa suddenly has become a place where we have more interest. chuck was deputy secretary -- i got my acronyms maxed -- mixed up. he spent a lot of time looking at africa from the standpoint of his position in europe, kind of foreshadowing what was to come. and pleading, i think, for engagement in dealing with what was happening there. now we are seeing some of the consequences of all of th
there have been many times in our history when presidents have had to do the hard work. president george h. w. bush made a budget agreement for which he may have caused him to lose the election in 1992 because it angered a number of republicans. but it also help don't the budget and gave us a period of time in the 1990s when that agreement plus a good economy gave us an actual surplus of funding. i sense that there is that the white house is feeling, two things. the first is that the budget problem is not a real problem and i can't believe people at the white house think that. everybody knows it is. mcconnell -- senator mcconnell gave a good explanation of what was going on there but let me say this way. in 2025 according to the congressional budget office every dollar of taxes we collect will go to pay for medicare and dedicated social security and interest on the debt and there is nothing left for national defense, national laboratories, pell grants for education, highways and every other thing the investments we need to make in research to grow this country. it all goes for medicare and me
that decision immediately. i support ronald reagan when he sent troops into -- grenada. i support george h w bush when he said troops into panama. i supported president clinton when he did what was needed to be done in kosovo and bosnia. in this instance, the president behaved in that tradition. >> the constitution has no exceptions for when you're having a tough time or when people disagree with you and you go ahead and do it. you were early 1970's, critical of the bombing in cambodia. you felt it was not authorized by congress. has your opinion changed? how is it different than libya? >> boarded my opinion -- nor did my opinion change about vietnam. >> is cambodia different than libya >? >> yes it is different. >> the constitution does not give this kind of latitude to sometimes go to war and sometimes not go to war. barack obama was explicit. people think or he and paul did like anything about barack obama. i like his forthrightness when he said, no president should unilaterally go to war. >> i respect that. you can be absolutist. it does not work in some instances when 10,000 people are
supported ronald reagan when he sent troops out. i supported george h. w. bush when he sent troops to panama. i supported president clinton when against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in bosnia, closet vow, and so forth. and in this particular instance, i think the president behaviored in that tradition. >> i would argue that the constitution has no exceptions for when you're having a tough time or people disagree with you that you go ahead and do it. >> in the early 1970s affiliate vietnam you were critical of the bombing in cambodia. i think you felt it wasn't authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different than libya? >> nor did my opinion change or has it ever altered about the war itself where i don't believe, and i argued that. >> was cambodia different than libya? >> yeah, it was. it was an extension of the war being prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that's very different. >> length of time. but similar circumstances bombing campaign unthorszed by congress. the
on it immediately. i supported ronald reagan when he sent troops into grenada. i supported george h.w. bush when he sent troops into panama. i supported president clinton, when, against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in kosovo and bosnia and so forth. in this case, i think the president has behaved in that tradition. >> i would argue the constitution doesn't have an exception -- that when you are having tough times, the constitution says that you just go ahead and do it. after vietnam, you were quite critical of the bombing in cambodia because you felt that it was not authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different from libya? >> my attitude has not changed about vietnam itself. >> what about cambodia? >> it was the extension of a war prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that is very different. >> length of time, but similar circumstances. and obama campaign and authorized by congress. it is not this kind of latitude to sometimes go to war and to sometimes not go to war. i thoug
benefit cuts. gale walenski, the former c.m.s. administrator under george h.w. bush, said in 2011, "if we don't redesign what we're doing, we can't just cut unit reimbursement and somehow think we're getting a better system." now, a lot of my colleagues give great credence to the private sector. in the private sector, one of the leaders in health care is george halvorson who recently stepped down as chairman and c.e.o. of kaiser permanente, one of the biggest and best health care companies in the country. here's what he said -- "there are people right now who want to cut benefits and ration care and have that be the avenue to cost reduction in this country and that's wrong. it's so wrong, it's almost criminal. it's an inept way of thinking about health care." so from republican administrators to private sector leaders, the message is the same -- we have to solve this as a system problem. let me give a couple of examples of how you might want to go about doing this. as one example of the significant savings to be found in our health care system, a "washington post" columnist recently wrote
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)